Posted - 03/20/2007 : 20:40:39 Obviously the two most offensively talented forwards to play the game. Which one would you say was the better of the two. It's close, but who do you give the edge to and why? If your answer is going to be something like "just look at the stats" don't even bother commenting please. To eliminate ambiguity, i shall endeavor to clarify this further. There are two ways to evaluate players. Peak value and career value. Peak value means in their prime at their best. Career obviously gives consideration to the length played. In this poll I would like to know which of these players had the better peak value?

40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

markliso

Posted - 03/28/2013 : 04:03:17 Gretzky.

I couldnt read all nine pages.

@valanche

Posted - 02/27/2013 : 11:34:06 I think Lemeiux had more raw or natural skill.Gretzky saw the ice and distributed the puck the best.I find it hard to compare the two they were much different players. One hint about who I voted for...

66 is > than 99

Alex116

Posted - 02/26/2013 : 07:47:05 Damn you Saginaw crossover! I thought you were finally extinct and not you not only pop up, you bring to the forefront one of the most annoying threads.......Way to go idiot.

Guest4022

Posted - 08/17/2011 : 20:47:15 Anybody remembe the 87 series against the russian baddies? We got away with the honors because Lemieux to Gertzky to Lemieux...and SCORRREEE! Now comeon...These two players ARE awesome! But if i could only chose one....Lemieux! Better skater,b etter hands, strong as a horse and a great view od the ice (I do agree that Gretzky wat the gratest playmaker). Thats my tho cents...:)

99pickles

Posted - 06/24/2011 : 10:36:05 To say "Lemieux would have scored more points if he didn't get cancer" is the same as saying "Gretzky would have scored more points if he didn't get older". So that kind of talk is meaningless...

Statistically, Gretzky has a significant advantage for both "peak-era performance" and for "entire career performance".

Gretzky has a little more respect and recognition as both a representative and diplomat for the game, and league, as well.

Since retiring, Gretzky has been very involved in amateur and international hockey at all levels including GMing, coaching and ownership. Lemieux has not been as much - his post-career involvement being primarily as owner of the team he inherited as compensation.

It doesn't seem to matter what categories or stipulations you apply to these two. It doesn't seem to matter if you include stats or not...whether you include just on-the-ice performance or just off-the-ice performance....whether you include just "career peak" versus "whole career"...or heck, whether you include just "post career"...

It seems that Gretz wins every single category by at least a little bit, and in some cases, by a lot!

In fact, the closest category of the thousands that you can compare these two by is this: Gretzky is the only player to ever break the 200 pt barrier, and Lemieux came closest - hitting the painful (and ironic) total of 199. Quite fitting.

Guest0829

Posted - 06/24/2011 : 03:54:00 Here's a stat for ya: Theres only a handful of players who have hit the 100 assist mark. Every player on that list has only done it once, except for Gretzky. He has done it 11 times.

11 TIMES!!!! 11 times he cleared 100 assists in a season, just remarkable!

ill give you all a moment for that to sink in.

ps I love lemieux too

good night;)

shazariahl

Posted - 06/04/2011 : 16:02:54

quote:Originally posted by Guest5001

The stats do not speak for themselves.

If you take the average goals per game and point per game totals of Mario Lemieux, and then add the same amount of games played by Gretzky to Mario that he WOULD have had if he didn't fight cancer and miss so many games, he would end up 9 points shy of Wayne Gretzkys career points mark, and over 50 goals more.

Fun huh?

That's not actually true. Gretzky played 1487 games, Lemieux played 915. That's a difference of 572 games. Lemieux retired with a career PPG average of 1.88, so 572 x 1.88 = 1075 points more had he played all those games. He actally scored 1723 points, so that plus 1075 = 2798. Gretzky scored 2857, so that minus Lemieux's theoretical 2798 = a difference of 59 points, not 9.

So not sure if you MEANT 59 and just mistyped, or not. But either way, its 59 points shy. Also, you are now giving him credit for basically 7 seasons worth of games he never played. As he got older, his PPG average would have gone down more (just as it did between his 1st and 2nd retirements), so in actual fact he would have finished further back than 59 points, IMO.

Regardless, I'll always favor ACTUALLY doing something over "could have maybe if things had worked out better", so Gretzky is still my answer.

Guest0389

Posted - 05/24/2011 : 14:22:04 Basically, were lookin at 2 of the greatest ever!Who can say which one was better?Maybe someone should ask Gretzky or Mario what they think. hmmmm

Guest9235

Posted - 03/22/2011 : 02:04:41 Part of the reason I think Gretzky was better was because he could stay healthy, for the most part, while Lemieux couldn't. Granted Lemieux did get cancer but even before then. If you look at todays NHL, Gaborik could be top 5 for points in the league every year if he were healthy, but he can't seem to stay healthy, where as a guy like Ovechkin who is able to stay healthy is always in the top 5. Health plays a huge factor.Lemieux also had an advantage on Gretzky in almost every tangible way. Make Gretzky Lemieux size with the same strength and then it would probably be a no contest. Gretzky did what he did while being so small. Given the physical advantages with Lemieux and he still couldn't surpass Gretzky, it's hard not to say that Gretzky wasn't better.

With that said, no matter what anyone posts, it's not going to change anyones mind or end the arguement. It's an endless debate that comes down to personal opinion. Either way, I wish I could have seen them play more when I was growing up, because noone will ever equal what those two could do.

Guest5001

Posted - 03/22/2011 : 01:16:36 The stats do not speak for themselves.

If you take the average goals per game and point per game totals of Mario Lemieux, and then add the same amount of games played by Gretzky to Mario that he WOULD have had if he didn't fight cancer and miss so many games, he would end up 9 points shy of Wayne Gretzkys career points mark, and over 50 goals more.

Fun huh?

Yewcandoit

Posted - 11/19/2010 : 01:17:25 Mario had amazing skill. He proved it in those few years he came back during the trap years. Unfortunately Mario was cursed with injuries, so he could never get the numbers that Gretzky did.

Gretzky also was very skilled. He was also the better team player, and had ridiculous peripheral vision. His eyes are the side of his head!

In my opinion, no one will ever break Gretzky's numbers. He was way ahead of his time, and the game has advanced so much defensively.

Guest4372

Posted - 07/08/2010 : 22:58:02

Well the debate rages on, and this time I had to respond, I had to give my opinion to this subject as to who was better Gretzky or Lemieux. I'm a proud Canadian myself, and although I’m not a hockey expert, or actually follow the sport that much, I feel like some people just don’t get the mark. As I ponder this I try to think of this in a pure logical, common sense approach, a pure sense of substance and in my opinion the choice is incredibly clear, Gretzky was the better of the 2 players and I’ll tell you why,

Over time, I’ve seen different opinions in papers and magazines, offering the constant debate that rages on to this day, but there are a few facts that rarely if ever have been addressed. There are 2 main topics that come to mind that give Gretzky that advantage, that brilliance that Lemieux never had, that sets the 2 players apart. In the early part of Gretzky joining the NHL, Gretzky was a skinny, weak, teen that was one of the lightest, players to play the game. In the early part of Gretzky joining the NHL, many critics believed Gretzky would never last, that Gretzky would get killed if he ever went professional, because people assumed he never had the aptitude to overcome the physical play of the game. In one article, another analogy was that he would be tossed around like a rag doll on the ice. Well, not only was Gretzky so good for so long with few injuries, but also he had what Lemieux never had, the prowess to be protect himself defensively and physically. On the contrary, Lemieux entered the NHL one of the biggest and strongest in the league which you think would have helped him, but it didn’t. I was watching some old video of Gretzky on youtube recently, old games from the early 80’s and I was impressed to see how the skinny young weak prodigy could not only dodge the big players from an offensive check, but how he could anticipate any player near him and get out of the way before being physically hurt in the boards. Gretzky had a way of going into a corner, retrieving the puck by doing an incredible 180 degree turn and dodge out of harms way before anyone could touch him. Many retired players later said that it was very hard to even check Gretzky, because he knew how to anticipate an opponent’s move. This sixth sense of Gretzky allowed him to accomplish 20 years in the NHL with minimal injuries. Think of the odds Gretzky overcame from a statistical curve by being so skinny and weak; yet to dodge injury in a league where your 25lbs lighter than most of your opponents. That wasn’t just luck, it was an incredible skill that Gretzky had that Lemieux never did. Lemieuxs skill simply consisted of plowing through players. I hear a lot that Gretzky played on a stacked team (the Edmonton Oilers), and that the talent-loaded team contributed to his success, but that’s not entirely true either since he rarely played along side Messier, Anderson, or Coffey unless there was a power play. I think it was also a credit to Gretzky’s talent that he could go from a “stacked” Oilers team to a talent-less bunch of nobody’s last place Kings team and still manage to finish with nearly 170 points in his first kings year as well as average nearly 150 points a season over his next 4 years……Absolutely Astonishing! Gretzky’s skill also went well beyond just his points total. It is understood that Lemieux style of play was different, but Lemieux’s style of play caused himself to have many different types of injuries, back problems and so forth. Lemieux just didn’t have the karma to dodge danger or have the physical STAMINA like Gretzky did; and he paid the price for it. The other scenario I would like to explain is that Lemieux never finished an entire full season while he played and this is important. I never thought it was really fair for people to compare players that get exhausted due to stress, physically, mentally, and on the road, during the course of the season and players that periodically get injured. The effect of slow depletion is what I like to call the FATIGUE FACTOR affecting everything from point performance to health. It has been proven statistically that there is usually a 20% drop in the point performance of a player due to this fatigue factor. The first 40 games of the season for most players, is statistically 20% higher than the last 40 games. I never thought it was fair that someone like Lemieux could get injured at one point throughout the season, miss 10 games and come back refreshed physically and mentally to complete the season. Lemieux experienced this A LOT throughout his career and he never had to experience the FATIGUE FACTOR as much as Gretzky did. When a player misses games due to an injury, not only does the injury get time to heal, but their whole body, physically and mentally. The whole body gets a rest, not only the injury, and when they come back, they are out of the FATIGUE FACTOR for a while. Here is an incredible example for you to ponder on; in Gretzky’s 1981-82 record-breaking goal scoring season, he scored 50 goals in his first 39 games. Now, if you were to PRO-RATE that performance throughout the entire season, Gretzky should have scored 102 goals that season. Why didn’t he? Because throughout the year, he came in to the fatigue factor and his goal performance went down during the last 20 games of that season…. And could you blame him? Gretzky, although playing, was being broke done physically and mentally, and in the end he finished with only 92 goals. Lemieux routinely was injured mid-way throughout the season, and came back new and refreshed to complete the season before the fatigue factor affected him. In retrospect, that’s why I see a lot of debates based on Lemieux’s PRO-RATE would-have/could-have stats. The problem with pro-rating in general is that it doesn’t factor in true predictions and chance scenarios of injuries or missed games due to a set of unanticipated circumstances. These bologna PRO- RATING stats literally assume a player will be playing a set amount of games without stopping. But you need to factor in unforseen happenings not only in life, but in sports as well. The fact that Lemieux was routinely injured and missed many games to recover further shows that Gretzkys genius for his sport goes way beyond just point stats, but his injury and circumstance record. Gretzky tops Lemieux slightly in the career ppg (1.92 to 1.88) but in reality, how many of Gretzkys games were played in the FATIGUE FACTOR compared to Lemieux? I would assume at least 500 games. We should have given Gretzky a break every time Lemieux had an injury and see how it would have turned out……. intriguing thought. I had to laugh when in one early season, Lemieux had 16 goals in his first 11 games right and people were already PRO-RATING his chance to challenge Gretzkys 92 goal season. Preposterous. Thank god as karma set in, and as fate would have it, Lemieux was unable to play AGAIN and the race was done. To think that critics were trying to PRO-RATE that little start of the season to breaking Gretzkys goal record is ludicrous, as with Lemieuxs impressive 41 points in 12 game start. He should have finished the season with 273 points…but didn’t. Both Gretzky and Lemieux have experienced short scoring explosive game point streaks during their careers, but you should not Pro-rate that streak as being able to sustain that level of play the entire season. That’s just no realistic. Also as a side note, Lets us remember that there were times when Lemieux had the opportunity to show his abilities to top Gretzky side by side in the international competitions such as the 1987 Canada cup, only to lose to Gretzky statistically again, and Lemieux never missed any games that time either. I took into account lemieuxs illness and cancer, but in the end this debate removed that because Lemieux routinely had injuries and missed games well before he was diagnosed in the early 90’s. Lemieux started his NHL season in 1984. Considering Gretzky owns mostly all the records that matter, Lemieux has had several different chances of opportunity to challenge and beat any of Gretzkys many other indirect scoring records but always came up just a little bit short…ppg career/ play-off stat records/ point streak etc……. These 2 scenarios I’ve mentioned I rarely see from debaters. Over the years I’ve been reading various NHL magazines and newspaper articles made from hundreds of critics, players, writers and managers, and I’ve never seen an article yet where Mario Lemieux, even as slight as it may be, has ever been regarded above Gretzky. You just can’t excuse Gretzkys longevity of greatness for so long. In the future, many up and coming greats in the NHL would need a couple factors to ever be able to break Gretzkys career points record;q They would have to have Gretzkys god given scoring gift on the ice throughout the entire seasonq Have to maintain that skill level for at least 18+ years.q Have the genius to dodge injuriesq And have at least 18 full seasons of minimal injury play.Lemieux, as great as he may have been, will forever be in Gretzky’s shadow, and he should be. I’ve been all over the U.S., and Gretzky’s name is pop culture now for most of North America and even the world, but Lemieux’s isn’t, since most people outside of Pittsburgh or the hockey realm don’t know who Mario is. In my opinion, I don’t see any player today that has the COMPLETE genius factor to ever-top Gretzky statistically. Quite a few players in the top 5 NHL career stats were good players, but they mostly got there because they played 4 or 5 more seasons than Gretzky and are still 1000 points back. In reality, it’s bewildering to think that unless a prodigy comes along in the next few years, Gretzky will be old and gray, or may never even witness anyone ever being able to challenge his career points total. Even at 140 points per season, it will take at least 20 years to come close to Gretzkys record. In the end, it’s not really a contest, there’s really nothing to debate at all, and Gretzky has been and will be for the long-term future the greatest hockey player ever. Period.

Username - HarvardPHD88

Guest4050

Posted - 07/02/2010 : 13:59:42 Gretzky was great but Mario was Magnificient, Only Bobby Orr could take over the game the way mario lemieux did he may have looked lazy but he was a monster. From a stats perspective Gretzky is the man but over the course of his career gretzky played with 10 - 15 first ballot hall of famers (Messier Hull, Coffee Kurri Robataille and the list goes on where as lemieux played with 4 Jagr, Coffee, Francis & Maybe Recchi) So from the point of view of who could of been more dominant it was Lemieux for me but like all of these questions about who's better it is simply an opinion

Guest2223

Posted - 06/30/2010 : 15:23:32 I can tell you that Wayne Gretzky is the best NHL player of all time. Mario Lemieux is the fourth best NHL player of all time. i heard. I picked Gretzky. He is awsome.

Deaner

Posted - 06/01/2010 : 16:38:00 I like them both but i had to give it to the great one....there is a reason they call him that

Guest2598

Posted - 06/01/2010 : 09:43:04 "The league didnt change to a trapping style until mid to late 90's and Lemieux had 10-12 years of the same era of offensive league to prove he was better than Gretzky. Show me the year his all time was better than the Great one."

The year is 1997. Before retiring for 3 years and a half, Mario Lemieux's ppg avg was 2.01 (1494 pts in 745 games).

There are so many coffeehouse amateur comments here by people who think they know so much and yet have obviously never played hockey that it makes little sense arguing with this kind of stuff. Like suddenly, Alex Kovalev, Martin Straka, Robert Lang and als become great teammates...ok... Except of course that they were not great at any other point of their carreers when they were not playing with 66. Give me Kurri, Messier, Anderson, Tikkanen, Coffey (in his prime), Fuhr etc. anytime over these monday-morning quarterbacks. And as much as I liked Ron Francis, the best in the Lemieux's teammates mentioned, he was no Messier.

I overall agree with some simple comments above who just said that face-to-face, Mario > Gretzky. Teamwise, that's perhaps a better question, as some of the wiser commentators above suggested. I am not choosing between the two.

But the stuff about Mario having no heart compared to Gretzky (as if Dave Semenko never existed) cannot be left unanswered. Mario "looked" lazy and Gretzky looked like he worked hard, but this to me only tells how easy it was for Lemieux to play in the world's best league. Roger Federer does not need to go full throttle all the way against weaker opponents. But foremost, I will although leave it to Frank Deford of Newsweek/SI, back in the 90's, to put this heart debate to rest, or so I hope :

"Notwithstanding Gretzky's abiding majesty, posterity will never forget that no athlete—not even the sainted Lou Gehrig—has ever before Lemieux been struck down by a deadly disease at the very moment when he was the best of his sport at the best he ever would be. And since: Lemieux has achieved miraculously in remission, struggling, on the side, with a back injury so grievous that it has benched him after he merely laced up a skate. That is the stuff that answers people these days when they wonder where all our sports heroes have gone."- Frank Deford, Newsweek

Guest6840

Posted - 03/16/2010 : 22:04:05 I vote option the third option Ovechkin but out of those 2 Lemiux. this is due to Lemiux being able to fight for himself.

shazariahl

Posted - 03/12/2010 : 15:57:28

quote:Originally posted by Guest4786

It'sFirst of all, people on this blog have made the mistake of saying that the both of them basically played in the same era. It is true that there is only a 4 years difference between them but those 4 years makes all the difference. Gretzky peaked in the early-mid 80s. That's when he posted incredible numbers. After 1988, he only posted 50 goals once. He peaked when the conditions were perfect for him to break records. The game was slower back then, there was considerably less hooking, goalies had small equipment, coaches didn't rely on air-tight defensive systems and the quality of the 3rd and 4th lines guys was clearly not as good due in part to the lack of intensive systematic conditioning programs as we see today. Plus Wayne had his peak when he was part of the dynasty-era Oilers. Mario's peak was in the late 1980s. The game had changed, goalies had gotten better.

As time went on, the game got tougher and tougher and Gretzky lost his a bit of his aura. He never racked up 50 goals in the 1990s and he was limited to 20-goal something seasons for the few last seasons he played whereas Lemieux was still scoring 50 goals when he first retired and added 35 in 43 games when he came back in 2001.

Don't get me wrong, Gretzky was great, but he dominated when the stars were aligned and as the game changed, his dominance faded slowly.

Gretzky failed to bring the gold home in 1998 and he wasn't even picked during the shootout against Hasek. If there would have been a shootout in 2002, you can bet your ass that Lemieux would have been a part of that.

If someone asked me to choose between Gretzky and Lemieux, I'd pick Lemieux simply because he could do it all, even when the conditions of the game were bad, something Gretzky could not really achieve.

You have a lot of good points, but you seem to be constantly judging Gretzky by the last 5-7 years of his career. He still won 3 scoring titles in the early 90's, and put up more PPG than anyone in the 90's except Lemieux, and scored more points than anyone in the 90's including Lemieux (though obviously that was because Lemieux missed so many games). But your assertation that he dropped off and lost his "magic" is rather exagerated. Sure he wasn't scoring 92 goals in a season anymore, but no one else did that ever, so I can't really fault him for not doing it again.

You complain about him not leading Canada to gold in 98, but that was 1 year before he retired... he still led Canada in points even at that age, and it was the coaches decision not to have him in the shootout, not some flaw or fault of his own. Perhaps if he had shot and been stopped... but we had 5 shooters, and Hasek blanked them all, so even then I couldn't put the blame on 1 person, especially someone who didn't even have a chance to go in the shootout. As for other international play, he represented Canada 4 other times and led the entire tournament in scoring all 4 times, leading us to 3 golds and a bronze at the world jrs, and winning 2 MVPs, so its hard to say he didn't get the job done in international play. Ok, so he didn't win Olympic gold - but he wasn't even allowed to participate in the Olympics until he was almost ready to retire.

Gretzky scored more points at age 34+ than any player in NHL history, including some who played to far greater age. He put up less PPG than Lemieux at those ages, but played 2x as many games, and really... who cares what he did when he was old? No one here is saying Gretzky was the best because of his last 4 or 5 seasons. But for 10 years he averaged 180 pts a year - something Lemieux did only 1x ever. For 6 years he averaged over 200 pts a year - something Lemieux never managed to accomplish. He won 10 Art Rosses to Mario's 6 and 9 Harts to Mario's 3. He scored over 1100 more points as well. The GAP between their career accomplishments would be a first ballot Hall of Fame career.

If Mario could have stayed healthy, things may have been different. But he couldn't. Ever. And that's a big part of the game. Gretzky had 12 or 13 great years, a few more good ones, with some at the end where he was barely a top 7 player. But those years at the end don't have anything to do with the Greatness that he achieved when he was young and in his prime.

Mario, despite your assertations, faded too towards the end. Otherwise his PPG wouldn't have dropped from above Gretzky's level (and above 2 PPG) down to only 1.88 by the time of his last retirement.

Guest4786

Posted - 03/09/2010 : 12:33:47 It's hard to pick who was the best between Gretzky and Lemieux. Gretzky has more points and was certainly very talented but if I had there are reasons why he got those incredible stats Lemieux could not match.

First of all, people on this blog have made the mistake of saying that the both of them basically played in the same era. It is true that there is only a 4 years difference between them but those 4 years makes all the difference. Gretzky peaked in the early-mid 80s. That's when he posted incredible numbers. After 1988, he only posted 50 goals once. He peaked when the conditions were perfect for him to break records. The game was slower back then, there was considerably less hooking, goalies had small equipment, coaches didn't rely on air-tight defensive systems and the quality of the 3rd and 4th lines guys was clearly not as good due in part to the lack of intensive systematic conditioning programs as we see today. Plus Wayne had his peak when he was part of the dynasty-era Oilers. Mario's peak was in the late 1980s. The game had changed, goalies had gotten better. A goalie couldn't post an above 3.00 goal against average and win the Vezina trophy anymore. When Lemieux peaked, he didn't have the best team at hand either. The Francis, Stevens, Jagr and all came later to Pittsburg.

As time went on, the game got tougher and tougher and Gretzky lost his a bit of his aura. He never racked up 50 goals in the 1990s and he was limited to 20-goal something seasons for the few last seasons he played whereas Lemieux was still scoring 50 goals when he first retired and added 35 in 43 games when he came back in 2001. At the end of his career, people reverred Gretzky because he was a legend for all the records he had broken. But he wasn't close to the player he used to be. Mario, on the other hand was fantastic to the very end. Even at the very end of his career, every time he hit the ice, everybody wondered what incredible trick he was going to pull out of his bag.

Don't get me wrong, Gretzky was great, but he dominated when the stars were aligned and as the game changed, his dominance faded slowly. Lemieux remained consistent through his whole career, overcame cancer, dominated the league during the 'hooking era' scoring over 50 goals, he took a losing team and took it to greatness. When that team was in trouble on and off the ice he came back to save it, he captained Team Canada to the gold medal, etc. Gretzky failed to bring the gold home in 1998 and he wasn't even picked during the shootout against Hasek. If there would have been a shootout in 2002, you can bet your ass that Lemieux would have been a part of that.

The major problem about Gretzky is that he was rather unequal in his skills: could pass better than anyone, had a scoring touch in the 1980s but he wasn't great on the breakaways, couldn't check, was an average skater and was quite small. If someone asked me to choose between Gretzky and Lemieux, I'd pick Lemieux simply because he could do it all, even when the conditions of the game were bad, something Gretzky could not really achieve.

Guest0828

Posted - 02/15/2010 : 18:03:10 Comparing which one was the greater team mate [ not mentioned so far ]If you ask other players it is considered that Gretzky was perhaps the best team mate ever as he was comitted to his team unlike anyone else Proven I believe that it was ALWAYS him that drove to the airport and picked up the newly traded player when he played in New York at the end of his carrier just as he did with the Oilers at the beginning of itLet me put that another way Mario was a GREAT player no doubtGretzky Was GOD!!

shazariahl

Posted - 02/11/2010 : 17:46:55

quote:Originally posted by Guest4705

For me it comes down to one simple scenario. Tie game with one minute remaining, who would you rather have on the ice to score the winner? Sorry gretzky fans but even you will admit we should put Mario on the ice. those who disagree are lying to themselves.

Assuming Mario is even dressed and healthy enough to play this particular game, which about 20 times a year he wasn't, I'd still pick Prime Gretzky over any other player. How am I lying to myself to pick the most productive player in league history as my go-to guy on the ice in the final minute? I can't think of a single player who made more big goals with the pressure on than Gretzky; either scoring them himself, or setting someone else up for the goal.

If I need a player to go 1 on 4 and try to score, I'll take Lemieux. But I should never need that. So in every other scenario, I'll take the Great One. I honestly don't even need to think twice about it.

Alex116

Posted - 02/09/2010 : 10:54:27

quote:Originally posted by Guest7060

I will end this topic right now. take both players in their prime give them each a decent goalie, is there anyone one that thinks gretzky would even touch the puck in a one on one game. end of discussion

Wow, one on one! What a cool concept! Would Mario beat him at darts too? How bout snooker? Those have about as much to do with hockey as one on one with a goalie. Nice try though, and btw, you lied, you haven't ended this topic, although i wish somehow, someone could?

As for your scenario guest 4705, are you talking the silly one on one thing as well? Cuz if you're talking about normal hockey, the way the game is played, i 'd take Gretzky in his prime. Am i lying to myself? I'd say no, i'm choosing the guy who put up better numbers. Doesn't necessarily mean i think Wayne would win it, but i'd be willing to bet he gets an assist on the winner if he doesn't score it.

Guest4705

Posted - 02/09/2010 : 02:47:18 For me it comes down to one simple scenario. Tie game with one minute remaining, who would you rather have on the ice to score the winner? Sorry gretzky fans but even you will admit we should put Mario on the ice. those who disagree are lying to themselves.

Guest7060

Posted - 02/09/2010 : 02:27:17

I will end this topic right now. take both players in their prime give them each a decent goalie, is there anyone one that thinks gretzky would even touch the puck in a one on one game. end of discussion

slozo

Posted - 12/11/2009 : 05:50:00 Some nice contributions in the last little while from Tiller, Shazariahl, and guest 9838.

I had never seen the Gretzky stat before, about his stats after he left Edmonton, in terms of ppg . . . that just blew me out of the water, frankly. How impressive is that? Downward side of his career until the end, on crappier teams, and he still puts up those numbers? Phenomenal is all I can say.

I really wish in hindsight that Lemieux didn't retire early . . . and that his back wasn't an issue. Then, I think, the "contest" wouldn't have been muddied up with a bunch of 'what ifs' and 'could haves', and we would all be able to see in black and white that Mario was just a tiny step below Gretzky.

That's right . . . I think a lengthening of Mario's career would have shown everyone some diminishing numbers, as he went through the grind of the season, and had to play through all the bumps and bruises and contusions and sprains that hockey players of all types, even superstars, have to play through. When you have a bad back and get a day or two off, then come back to play a game . . . it muddies up the waters. People point to the fact that "he's playing hurt", when in actuality he got a day of rest to keep up his points per game average. There's no need to compare the injuries and ailments between the two, because besides the fact that Gretzky obviously never had something like Hodgkin's, we can't quantify injuries and really compare them. The one thing I can predict with confidence, however, is that a player playing FULL TIME (see: no games off in between like a Lemieux or Forsberg) goes through a diminishing returns cycle starting at the peak of your career and continuing downward until the end.

It's not always perfect . . . some players have resurgent years, come into a better situation near the end of their careers, find better chemistry or play with better players, or get over some nagging injury - but in general, the diminishing returns are there.

I want to see the Lemieux after 1000 games when he's playing at least 70 games in a season. I want to see him on a different team like the Rangers or Kings in the late 90's . . . teams that might squeeze into the playoffs and make a solid run if they're lucky. I want to see a Lemieux who has gone through the regular grind of season after season without the benefit of seasons off, weeks off, etc. (to clarify - this means he wouldn't have the serious ailments, I in no way mean to belittle what he went through). No, I want to see what Lemieux could do after going through exactly what Gretz went through, and I know it would all be clear as day.

At least I feel better these days looking at the poll . . . the correct person is now leading it

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 12/10/2009 : 10:23:02

quote:Originally posted by Guest9299

Heres my $.02Switch Gretzky and Lemieux around and think about it. Put Lemieux on those Oiler teams of the early 80's and Gretzky on those horrendous Penguin teams and think of the difference it would make. Then think about Lemieux spending his prime years in the run and gun pond hockey nhl of the early 80's instead of his prime years when the game switched to a defensive trapping style in the early 90's and i think the record books would look vastly different.

The league style was totally different when they put up their best numbers when Gretzky was in his prime scoring years the league was averaging almost 8 goals per game whereas with Lemieux when he was entering his prime years the league was averaging just around 6 goals per game. You say how crazy his scoring marks are but they are bloated by a wide open run and gun league whereas Lemieux averaged almost as many points per game when the league tightened up considerably defensively

Totally disagree with your arguement. The league didnt change to a trapping style until mid to late 90's and Lemieux had 10-12 years of the same era of offensive league to prove he was better than Gretzky. Show me the year his all time was better than the Great one. As for his linemates, if Gretzky was on the Penguins instead of the Oilers there may be a few extra Penguin members in the hall of fame and a few extra cup wins for the Penguins. You just dont remember how these 2 changed the face of the game and it is becoming a more distant memory every year. Again no bash on Lemieux but the teamate defense for Lemieux dont work cause Gretzky affected how well his teamates played and developed better than Lemieux did. He took a slow defensively challenged Robitaille into a hall of famer and like Tiller mentioned made Kurri the highest scoring point producing European winger of his time. BTW both played in the league when defensive traps had slowed the game down and point producing between them was similar. If the edge for points or goals went to Lemieux you do have to remember Gretzky was also 4 years his senior.

shazariahl

Posted - 12/09/2009 : 23:29:37 The teammate arguement loses much of its validity IMO when you consider just how much better Gretzky was over the rest of his team. Look at his 212 pt season - the nearest Oiler was Coffee with 105. So the next closest teammate is 107 pts back, has just under HALF his point total, and yet people still say it was the team? Also, as someone else mentioned, Jagr was a better player than Kurri (or even Messier, IMO). After all, Jagr won 5 scoring titles of his own, and was probably the 2nd best player in the league when Lemieux was away. Kurri wasn't even the 2nd best Oiler, for many of those years, let alone the 2nd best player in the league.

Gretzky's playoff performances were also better, and nearly winning a cup with the Kings is another definite plus. Speaking of plusses, his +/- is vastly superior (he actually has the best +/- of any forward in history).

Lemieux is just 2nd in every category (or worse). Most goals in a season? Gretzky is 1st and 2nd, then Hull and Lemieux. Assists? Gretzky is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, umm... 4th-7th... and then tied with Lemieux for 8th as well. Points? Gretzky's best seasons are 1st-4th, Lemieux is 5th, and Gretzky is then 6th. Playoff points? Gretzky is 1st, Lemieux 2nd, Gretzky 3rd, 4th, and 5th.

Yes, Lemieux would have had closer numbers if he hadn't been injured or ill as much, but that's part of the game. Time not on the ice isn't worth any points. And even in shorter time spans, like playoff runs where Lemieux didn't miss games and should have had every opportunity to dominate, he still didn't. Heck, in Gretzky's cup run with LA he came close to matching Lemieux's best post season ever, and with far less talent around him. Gretzky outscored him in the Canada Cup series, when they played on the same team and had access to all the same players and same level of talent around them. Yet Gretzky outscored him and won tournament MVP. If Lemieux were so much better, shouldn't he have been able to show it in a shorter and smaller time frame like this? One that he was able to be healthy for, and didn't miss any games? Yet time and time again, he was just a little bit short of Gretzky's marks.

Don't get me wrong - Lemieux is one of my favorite players, and was one of the most exciting to watch. And his return to hockey after his battle with cancer is one of the most epic comeback stories in all of sports. He just had the misfortune to being eclipsed by the greatest offensive player in history.

Guest9299

Posted - 12/09/2009 : 13:44:02 Heres my $.02Switch Gretzky and Lemieux around and think about it. Put Lemieux on those Oiler teams of the early 80's and Gretzky on those horrendous Penguin teams and think of the difference it would make. Then think about Lemieux spending his prime years in the run and gun pond hockey nhl of the early 80's instead of his prime years when the game switched to a defensive trapping style in the early 90's and i think the record books would look vastly different.

The league style was totally different when they put up their best numbers when Gretzky was in his prime scoring years the league was averaging almost 8 goals per game whereas with Lemieux when he was entering his prime years the league was averaging just around 6 goals per game. You say how crazy his scoring marks are but they are bloated by a wide open run and gun league whereas Lemieux averaged almost as many points per game when the league tightened up considerably defensively

Guest9838

Posted - 12/09/2009 : 13:29:16 Beans, I believe you first posted the question a couple of years ago and the topic continues to be debated. For that reason alone you might call it a draw. Having said that, I call Gretzky. And because of this, hopefully you will read and enjoy my comment in spite of being a guest.

I'm 43, currently bored to tears, have lived in Ontario my entire life and choose Orr over both of them...but that wasn't the question. I had the pleasure of watching both Gretzky and Lemieux. Both obviously talented and if there were shootouts during their years, perhaps Lemieux would get higher ratings but don't think for a second he would outscore Gretzky night after night. Take a look at some highlight reels and you will notice that Gretzky scored so many goals for a good reason. For a guy who wasn't considered a sniper, he put more slapshots over the shoulder/glove than anybody in the game.

Did Lemieux's size and reach help him? You bet. Imagine Gretzky at that size (for all you hypthetical lovers)! Was Lemieux a more complete player though? Not a chance. Lemieux didn't have nearly the production penalty killing as Gretzky so don't give me he was more defensive. Gretzky wasn't considered defensive because he was so offensive. Even on a power play opposing teams were worried about Gretzky when he was on the ice. Stats believers or not, his +/- tells you the same as Orr's; when they were on the ice, look out!

Lemieux was physical vs. Gretzky never got hit. Chalk it up to one of three things, the least of which is protection. He was too smart to get hit. Anytime a guy committed to hit him, Gretzky set up a line mate...could have been a peewee AAA player and he still would have been on a breakaway. Gretzky was also too difficult to hit. He was shifty and because he read the ice so well, he often completed his play with enough time to evade being hit. Too bad Orr didn't have that ability or the stats books would have been far different (again, for the hypothetical lovers).

Let's address top 5 seasons or peak production or longevity. All can be intertwined. Stats aside they were both dominant in their prime. The difference is, we never had an opportunity to witness Lemieux playing while not in his prime...that is, without an asterisk! So to compare them in their prime you must look at stats. Again, the nod goes to Gretzky. Oh wait, I can hear the "supporting cast" arguement already. One question, without Gretzky do you think you would recognize the name Jari Kurri? Not a #$%^ing chance! Why does anybody remember the name Rob Brown? Jagr was a greater star than Gretzky ever played with. Sure Messier was in Edmonton but they were never regular line mates.

Finally, an intangible measure that gives Gretzky the unanimous nod. Canadians are known for something specific other than simply hockey. Check the Conn Smythe winners over the years (last year was a travesty - NOW THAT WAS ALL STATS!) The only team to win the Stanley Cup without the heart of the team represented by Canadians was the Detroit Red Wings. Canadians have heart! Plain and simple. Heart wins games, trophies and, well, hearts! For a guy who was physically so much smaller than Lemieux, his heart was 10 times the size. If you are picking teams for a game of pond hockey and your last two choices were Gretzky and Lemieux (a reminder that hockey is a team sport!), you choose Gretzky, period! He is going to make everybody around him better. Not by setting them up but by making them try harder and reach deeper. End of story!

Guest 9838akaRick

Tiller33

Posted - 12/09/2009 : 11:25:29

quote:Where were you in 80-84? During that time in Edmonton, he was heads and tails better than his teamates and the rest of the league. Any that was without all the Physical gifts that Mario had better than Gretzky. He may not have physically dominated the game or had the better breakaway skills, but his head for the game was/is unmatched, period! Not a bash on Mario who had the best Physical gifts the game may have ever seen. I never seen Orr play and some will say he had the best physical gifts.

Got to agree Josh I only have second hand info as well, but from anyone I have asked that grew up in the Bobby Orr era they say with all due respect that he is the most skilled hockey player to play the game. I think it speaks volumes that he was the only defencemen to have ever won the Art Ross Trophy

There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem

Tiller33

Posted - 12/09/2009 : 11:19:38

quote:Originally posted by Guest9299

Heres my $.02Switch Gretzky and Lemieux around and think about it. Put Lemieux on those Oiler teams of the early 80's and Gretzky on those horrendous Penguin teams and think of the difference it would make. Then think about Lemieux spending his prime years in the run and gun pond hockey nhl of the early 80's instead of his prime years when the game switched to a defensive trapping style in the early 90's and i think the record books would look vastly different.

Here are the stats compared make your own call but in my opinion if you can't plainly see its Gretz then you've been spending too much time banging your head against a wall. It's the original Crosby/Ovechkin type argument of a decade ago one is a career long set-up man and one is a prolific goal scorer (but both can do the opposite better than anyone else in the league). For me who the better player player in their Peak it's Gretzky, but they are the 2 best of all time and niether will be touched not even by Crosby or Ovechkin.

I love this topic. I could go on for ages and ages. But I'll give you guys the short version here. Gretzky, as a player, in terms of skill, could not play with Mario. This is really a joke topic, because stats aside, just LOOK AT THE TWO OF THEM PLAY!!! If you play hockey and love hockey, it's kinda a no brainer. Mario was like a god out there. Gretzky was not like a god out there. I saw both play live too, btw. No f------ contest whatsoever.

Where were you in 80-84? During that time in Edmonton, he was heads and tails better than his teamates and the rest of the league. Any that was without all the Physical gifts that Mario had better than Gretzky. He may not have physically dominated the game or had the better breakaway skills, but his head for the game was/is unmatched, period! Not a bash on Mario who had the best Physical gifts the game may have ever seen. I never seen Orr play and some will say he had the best physical gifts.

Guest9299

Posted - 12/09/2009 : 09:43:21 Heres my $.02Switch Gretzky and Lemieux around and think about it. Put Lemieux on those Oiler teams of the early 80's and Gretzky on those horrendous Penguin teams and think of the difference it would make. Then think about Lemieux spending his prime years in the run and gun pond hockey nhl of the early 80's instead of his prime years when the game switched to a defensive trapping style in the early 90's and i think the record books would look vastly different.

Guest0182

Posted - 12/09/2009 : 07:42:38 I love this topic. I could go on for ages and ages. But I'll give you guys the short version here. Gretzky, as a player, in terms of skill, could not play with Mario. This is really a joke topic, because stats aside, just LOOK AT THE TWO OF THEM PLAY!!! If you play hockey and love hockey, it's kinda a no brainer. Mario was like a god out there. Gretzky was not like a god out there. I saw both play live too, btw. No f------ contest whatsoever.

Tiller33

Posted - 12/08/2009 : 19:55:03

quote:Originally posted by Gusteroni

On December 31/88 against the Devils, Lemieux scored a goal at even strength, on the power-play, shorthanded, on a penalty shot, and into an empty net for a total of five goals, five different ways. We have the Gordie Howe Hat-Trick so what should this be called?

"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season."

It should be called the "I'm an amazing hockey player but I wish I was that kid from Brantford" Hat Trick

There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem

Gusteroni

Posted - 12/08/2009 : 14:43:44 On December 31/88 against the Devils, Lemieux scored a goal at even strength, on the power-play, shorthanded, on a penalty shot, and into an empty net for a total of five goals, five different ways. We have the Gordie Howe Hat-Trick so what should this be called?

"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season."

Guest2218

Posted - 12/08/2009 : 13:16:14 To those who are saying that Mario had tougher opponents in the east, that is unsubstantiated. However, some that is FACT is that teams in the West have a tougher travel schedule. Heck, how many times does a team from the east even have to play outside their time zone?

Guest2218

Posted - 12/08/2009 : 12:58:01 Mario was a better singular talent. He could skate better, and he could shoot better. Wayne, as many have alluded to, saw the ice better.

So if the question is who was the better talent, I go with Mario. I think in a game of one-on-one pond hockey, Mario would wipe Gretz. Gretzky's assets lie in his use of his teammates and his vision of the ice. In the team game, none is better than Gretzky. Hockey is a team game, therefore I vote for Gretzky.

Aside: can you imagine the huge advantage the Penguins would have had if shootouts were in place back in Mario's day? I can't think of anyone more automatic on the breakaway than Mario Lemieux.

Tiller33

Posted - 12/08/2009 : 09:37:19

quote:Originally posted by Guest0376

One thing people are forgetting here.If you surrounded Lemieux with half the talent Gretzky had to draw on he woulda blown Gretz outta the water. I can barely skate and I woulda got 50 goals playing on thoseEdmonton teams.

Oh ya Mario just played with a bunch of plug's throughout his career thats for sure:

Give your head a shake both amazing players but it's Gretz, hands down!

There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem

leigh

Posted - 12/08/2009 : 09:27:47

quote:Originally posted by Guest0376...and later Rangers he was mere average...

This statement is laughable. Are you kidding? Average? In his 3 years with NYR he put up 249 points! That's an average of 83 points per season. And in actuality in NYR he put up a 1.073 PPG. That is a career season for over 90% of NHL'ers. Ya, he was just average at the end of his career.